Philippe Houdoin <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Nah, no problem - we should always try to separate style fixes from > > other ones. I just looked over your changes, and fixed those issues > > while I was at it. > BTW, I wonder why when an interface is down its consumer thread is > not > killed or at least suspend. That's not a big deal, but what would be > the expected behavior? Shutting it down might just not have been implemented. I did only the reader, and that one should be properly shut down. The consumer thread was Hugo's idea to separate reading packets from processing it, as well as simplifying locking for local protocols (that previously did all their processing in the sending thread). Due to the added context switches, I'm not yet sure if that's a good idea, though, anyway, but I never did any measurements either (regarding CPU load, and performance). > I'm also investigating why when my usb_asix compliant adapter is > disconnect the device is not remove and the interface automatically > remove. Do you have any hint at where I should look? IIRC the device would need to go away to let the network server remove the interface. If not even the device disappears, I would start looking into the USB stack's unpublishing part. Bye, Axel.